Moo kommentiert N.T. Wrights Paulinische Theologie

Der Neutestamentler Douglas Moo (Wheaton College, USA) hat N.T. Wrights neues voluminöses Werk über die Theologie des Paulus:

• N. T. Wright. Paul and the Faithfulness of God, 2 Bde.,  Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013, 1696 S.

gelesen und für TGC rezensiert.

Hier ein Auszug:

God’s people are reconfigured around Messiah, who, by virtue of his faithfulness, accomplishes the task of rectifying the sin of Adam—a task first given to Abraham and one Abraham’s descendants failed to carry out. Paul’s reconfiguring of the Jewish concept of election is the way into his soteriology (912). Among the various elements of soteriology, Wright gives particular attention to justification: both because he views the juridical language of justification as “basic and nonnegotiable” (1039; incontrast to “subsidiary crater” views) and because it’s been controversial (e.g., the debate with John Piper). I strongly endorse Wright’s clear and convincing case for a strictly forensic sense of justification against those who would expand the concept to include transformation or (the more recent buzz word) “theosis” (956-59). Wright forthrightly argues a “Reformation-style” “faith alone” view of initial justification, claiming it’s the basis for our assurance and arguing the verdict announced now by faith will be confirmed on the last day (954-55; 1031-32). He also continues to stress a future justification that will be “according to the fullness of the life that has been led” (941; formally about “judgment,” but Wright clearly sees judgment and future justification as interchangeable) or “on the basis of the totality of the life led” (1028). I sympathize with Wright’s desire to accommodate the emphasis Paul puts on obedience, and I think he’s right to find a future aspect of justification in Paul. But little words are very important here; I agree future justification is “according to” the life lived but not “on the basis” of the life lived. I also continue to think Wright puts too much emphasis on the “covenant” side of justification at the expense of the forensic (he emphatically includes both in his view) and shifts the emphasis in Paul a bit by tying justification to the question of “How can we tell who are God’s people?” rather than “How can we become God’s people?”

Wright’s treatment of Paul’s eschatology is in keeping with his concern to read the apostle in terms of the Old Testament/Jewish “story.” He therefore stresses again the “return to Zion” theme and focuses special attention on Israel’s role in the eschaton, devoting more than a hundred pages to a careful, step-by-step interpretation of Romans 9-11 (1156-1258). In addition to a lot of good exegesis, there’s much to like here. Noting the climactic nature of 10:1-13 for the whole section, with its clear claim that salvation is tied to Christ, Wright convincingly rebuts the “two-covenant,” “post-supercessionist” reading that’s gaining currencytoday: “A moment’s reflection on the central passage 10:5-13, with its statement about Jesus and about faith and salvation, will reveal that it is straightforwardly impossible to read Romans 9-11 as anything other than a statement firmly and deeply grounded in christology (in the sense of Paul’s belief about the Messiah)” (1163). Much of Wright’s energy is directed toward defending his controversial claim that “Israel” in 11:26 refers to all Messiah’s people; and, while I am not convinced, I can identify with Wright’s admission to considerable wrestling over these chapters and acknowledge the strength of the case he makes.

Es freut mich, dass Wright (laut Moo) diesmal klarer zum Thema „Glaubensgerechtigkeit“ Stellung genommen hat. Es überrascht, dass er sich erneut für eine futuristische Rechtfertigung „nach der Fülle des Lebens, das geführt worden ist“ oder „auf der Grundlage der Gesamtheit des gelebten Lebens“, ausspricht. Wie in den Kommentaren zur Buchbesprechung vermerkt, distanzierte sich Wrigth auf der ETS Jahreskonferenz 2010 von seiner eigenen Formulierung: „Rechtfertigung auf Grundlage des Lebens“. Da nun eine ähnliche Formulierung in seinem Opus magnum zu finden ist, werden die Diskussionen weitergehen.

Hier die vollständige Rezension: thegospelcoalition.org.

Ähnliche Beiträge:

• R.B. Gaffin: Die Heilsordnung bei Paulus
• Michael Horton analysiert N.T. Wright’s Rechtfertigungslehre
• Die Rechtfertigungslehre von N.T. Wright
• N.T. Wright’s neues Buch über die Rechtfertigungslehre
• Die ferne Vision des N.T. Wright
• Die Rechtfertigungslehre von N.T. Wright
• Mark A. Seifried antwortet N.T. Wright
• Peter Stuhlmacher über die Neue Paulusperspektive
• Denny Burke liest N.T. Wright
• Kim Riddlebarger liest über N.T. Wright’s Paulusperspektive